posted
We are only a few days off from this years elections so it seems timely to ask how you feel about the health of American Democracy.
1. During the last two Presidential election cycles there have been concerns about whether or not votes were actually counted, concerns about disenfranchisement of certain voting populations and concerns about voter fraud. Do you think these issues are a concerning going into this election cycle? Which do you think is the biggest problem? Do you think these problems are severe enough to affect the outcome of the election? Do you think they are serious enough to erode American's confidence in the electoral process? What kind of evidence would it take for you to seriously consider that the elections might have been rigged?
2. Are you satisfied with the candidates that are on the ballot? Do you think that current processes are getting the best possible people on the final election ballot?
3. Is the two party system working to adequately represent most people or would you like to have greater ideological diversity in the people elected to office?
4. Are we heading toward a smooth transition of power? If McCain wins even though he is trailing in the polls, will there be riots? If Obama wins will those people who think he could be a Muslim Terrorist riot or "Respect the Office of the President"? Will there be an increase in racial violence by disaffected voters from either side?
Overall I'm just interested in seeing what kind of problems people think are likely to be big enough to make the headlines the second half of next week. Will the overwhelming majority of Americans walk away from the election feeling like democracy works even if their candidate lost or will there be strong dissatisfaction among a sizable segment of the population?
Do you think there is any chance of people being upset enough about the election outcomes to actually lead to any major changes in the process?
Get your predictions on record now.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Yes. For the most part it appears courts are slapping down the whole registry purging thing, which is good, and anyone can cast a ballot of some sort on election day anyway, though provisional ballots are less likely to count in the long run. But the voter registration process is fundamentally flawed. I don't even understand why we HAVE to register. It seems an unnecessary extra step. I think you should be automatically given a voter ID number when you are born, just like you get a social security number. When you move you have to register a change of address. If necessary you could give everyone a voter ID card and have it expire every could years to make sure that people aren't trying to game the system.
No I don't think they'll change who actually gets elected. But then, there's really no way to know. Far bigger than the problem of who can vote and voter disenfranchisement is the problem of electronic voting and the horror stories you hear about vote switching. We need a simpler system with a paper trail. And most of all, it needs to be nationally standardized. I really don't get how it can possibly be that hard to do this. We've had scantron technology in schools for decades and they can't figure it out in elections? Ridiculous. This isn't a technologial gap, it's a stupid officials in charge of the system gap.
I also don't think American confidence in the system will be damaged. If Florida in 2000 couldn't cause us to rise up and demand the system be reworked, I don't think anything save concrete evidence of a massive conspiracy to change the vote would do it. It would take quite a bit for me to believe it. I'd have to have someone caught red handed and have it all explained in detail. Rumors and suggestion won't do it.
2. Yes. No. What we have now is a system that's been around for 200 and some odd years that best results in the most politically viable candidate, not the most qualified candidate. I can think of a couple ways to fix it, but all of them involve getting rid of the two-party systme.
3. Which brings us to this question. I think despite what most people think, a lot of issues really do get solved, and wouldn't be solved a whole lot better if there were more parties involved. People still feel strongly about the issues they feel strongly about, and political alliances are always going to happen. And I don't see how you can legislate an end to the two party system, either realistically or practically. I'd like to see more groups in Congress, if only for the necessity of coalition building and compromise it would take, but with what we have, I'd just rather see Democrats take over, as I agree with them on so much, and I'm willing to swallow what I don't agree with them on.
4. Yes. No, No. Hard to tell, maybe. We've had transfers of power in far more contentious atmospheres than this. There aren't going to be riots if either of them win, unless there really is a conspiracy unmasked. I will say that if McCain wins, a lot of people are going to be absolutely pissed, if only because it's looked like Obama's victory has been in hand for awhile now, though I suspect a lot of them will blame the youth vote for not turning out as well as they are supposed to this time around.
When Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004, they cried about it for a couple weeks and then railed against the system as often as they could for eight years, but they didn't flip cars over or take to the streets with pitchforks and torches. If Republicans can claim to be half as American as that (let alone twice as American, which is what the claim always seems like), then they can do the same. I think the GOP will go home and do some soul searching. If they lose, it'll be for a reason, and they need to go back and figure out what that is, and maybe they need to take another look at their tactics and positions to see where they went wrong. Will they? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think they'll declare American democracy fundamentally flawed and riot over it.
Any argument they make against the result will be countered with their own claims to patriotism, and freedom of choice, and democracy, and all the blah blah blah crap they are always throwing in everyone else's face. They're the ones who always say "love it or leave it" and I guess they'll have to see how their ideology fits the mold when the shoe is on the other foot.
But I don't think it'll result in violence, just a lot of bitterness.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. During the last two Presidential election cycles there have been concerns about whether or not votes were actually counted, concerns about disenfranchisement of certain voting populations and concerns about voter fraud. Do you think these issues are a concerning going into this election cycle? Which do you think is the biggest problem? Do you think these problems are severe enough to affect the outcome of the election? Do you think they are serious enough to erode American's confidence in the electoral process? What kind of evidence would it take for you to seriously consider that the elections might have been rigged?
When compared to some recent elections in other countries around the world, the American system works pretty well. There are plenty of flaws, but I don't think large parts of the voting population are getting misrepresented by fundamental problems in the system. I honestly think one of the biggest problems in the voting process is the media coverage of it.
2. Are you satisfied with the candidates that are on the ballot? Do you think that current processes are getting the best possible people on the final election ballot?
No. Considering what it takes to get a major party nomination, some of the best possible candidates aren't going to get anywhere near the presidency. I don't think this is the worst choice we've had, although I'm much less excited about Obama vs. McCain than I was six months ago. I always get disenchanted by the mudslinging and fluff-filled debates of the general campaign.
3. Is the two party system working to adequately represent most people or would you like to have greater ideological diversity in the people elected to office?
I think people tend to align themselves to what are perceived as party stances more than parties align themselves to large portions of the population. However, the two-party system does seem to keep extremists from either side from having too fair of a chance. I wouldn't be excited to see a candidate running on a limited platform get into the mainstream.
4. Are we heading toward a smooth transition of power? If McCain wins even though he is trailing in the polls, will there be riots? If Obama wins will those people who think he could be a Muslim Terrorist riot or "Respect the Office of the President"? Will there be an increase in racial violence by disaffected voters from either side?
I think the transition of power will be smooth. I don't think we've gotten to the point where the president and government is unwilling to let go of power once voted out or once their term is up. As far as racial violence, there are always crazies, but any incidents would be pretty isolated.
ETA: One of the beauties of the American system is that the party that wins the presidential election isn't necessarily the party "in power," able to oppress the losing party. There aren't troops in the streets arresting all the dissidents. The candidate for the other party wins, and we still can look for ways to advance our own interests and work with the system. There may be grumbling, but there isn't any loss of rights and liberties.
[ October 31, 2008, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know how viable it would actually be, but I always thought that the "Second Place" winner of the election were made vice president, it would really help the country a lot more. The President would have a little bit more of a check and they would have to learn how to work effectively together to get stuff done.
Am I worried about the election system? I am. I have seen a lot of articles about how the electronic voting system is flawed and that republicans control it and yada yada yada. However there have been documented cases of issues with the electronic voting systems that favored democratic candidates as well, all at the local or state level however. I will see if I can locate some of the documents, its been a few years.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: There aren't going to be riots if either of them win, unless there really is a conspiracy unmasked. I will say that if McCain wins, a lot of people are going to be absolutely pissed, if only because it's looked like Obama's victory has been in hand for awhile now, though I suspect a lot of them will blame the youth vote for not turning out as well as they are supposed to this time around.
When Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004, they cried about it for a couple weeks and then railed against the system as often as they could for eight years, but they didn't flip cars over or take to the streets with pitchforks and torches. If Republicans can claim to be half as American as that (let alone twice as American, which is what the claim always seems like), then they can do the same. I think the GOP will go home and do some soul searching. If they lose, it'll be for a reason, and they need to go back and figure out what that is, and maybe they need to take another look at their tactics and positions to see where they went wrong. Will they? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think they'll declare American democracy fundamentally flawed and riot over it.
While that is all true, there are somethings that make this years election truly different.
This year, the democrat is leading by a substantial margin in all the polls so if McCain wins it will look highly suspicious to a lot of people. Unless something major happens with voter turnout that's easy to document with the exit polls, I can easily see this being the last straw for some of the more radicalized democrats.
Additionally, there is the race factor to consider. We've had race riots triggered by less in the past. The black population as a whole tend to be more cynical about the democratic process and given this countries racial history who can really blame them. Many black voters are very excited about Obama's candidacy. If they loose and there is the slightest hint that things weren't on the up and up, I could easily see riots breaking out in the predominantly black neighborhoods in places like Chicago, Detroit and LA.
I really hope it doesn't happen. I seriously hope we never get to find out if it would have happened if McCain won under a cloud of suspicion.
The other possibility I see doesn't have anything to do with the mainstream republicans. But given the number of people lined up at McCain rallies who say "Obama's a terrorist" and the number truly wacko racist, pro-violence nuts we have around, and the conservative pundits who have been fanning the flames, I think its reasonable to expect an increase in hate crimes in the aftermath of an Obama victory.
Once again I hope it doesn't happen, but I am worried.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think restructuring the debates can solve quite a few issues. If four candidates were on stage, and if there were a section where the candidates themselves prepared the questions for other candidates, read by the moderator, the candidates would be forced to take sides on issues, instead of racing to the safe ground.
2) The money. I talked to this Obama volunteer from a small county in suburban MO. She said that the Obama Campaign had two paid permanent staff organizers-- dialed directly into Obama Central, pizza, and a buses of college kid volunteers rolling in, just for her little county. She felt bad because the McCain campaign couldn't compete. Not too bad, but she seemed to find it a bit gross. This is one of those elections where we are awarding bad behavior, and it's not good for democracy.
Money is not speech. Obama may have 45-55 percent of the electorate, but he is outspending McCain 3 and 4 to 1 on ads, and with respect to the number of direct paid campaign specific organizers, I don't even know if it is that close.
posted
On the voter fraud thing, I recently heard about this book - Witness to a Crime", which purports to show proof that voter fraud in Ohio in 2004 was systematic, widespread, and decisive. I don't know too much about it, and normally that kind of website would set off my crackpot alarms, but I heard about it through NPR so I'm trying to find out more about it.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Additionally, there is the race factor to consider. We've had race riots triggered by less in the past. The black population as a whole tend to be more cynical about the democratic process and given this countries racial history who can really blame them. Many black voters are very excited about Obama's candidacy. If they loose and there is the slightest hint that things weren't on the up and up, I could easily see riots breaking out in the predominantly black neighborhoods in places like Chicago, Detroit and LA.
That's true, but we're also a different coutnry than we were in the past. Racial tensions have receded since then. It's going to take a lot more to set off a race riot. I think if they didn't set one off when he got nominated, they aren't going to set one off when he gets elected. Was it on here or somewhere else, I don't remember, where some racists in Western PA said they don't like him, but times are tough so they're voting for the n*****. Race isn't the all consuming issue anymore, and I think most black people never expected Obama to get nominated let alone win. I think for a lot of them his loss will seem like pretty much what they expected anyway.
But if they do riot in Detroit, I'll let you know, since it's right down the street.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's true, but we're also a different coutnry than we were in the past. Racial tensions have receded since then.
Since when? I was thinking of the 1992 riots in LA following the acquittal of the police who beat Rodney King. I think racial tension are in fact much less than they were in 1969, but I haven't noticed any change since 1992.
quote:It's going to take a lot more to set off a race riot.
The 1992 LA riots were set off by a single court decision that blacks felt was racially biased.
quote:I think if they didn't set one off when he got nominated, they aren't going to set one off when he gets elected. Was it on here or somewhere else,
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I don't think a race riot is at all likely if Obama wins. I think that if he looses despite being way ahead in the polls, riots are a real possibility because it will be really easy for his supporters, particularly those who have historically been disenfranchised, to conclude that the election was rigged against them.
My fear if Obama wins isn't that there will be riots. My fear is that there is a tiny tiny minority of violent right wing wackos out there who will be angry enough about the elections to take it out on the nearest person of color. What I fear is that in the days to weeks following an Obama victory there is will be an increase in hate crimes. I don't think that this will be anywhere near big enough to call it a riot or to stop the smooth transition of power, but I think its a legitimate worry.
And I really really hope I'm wrong about this but there is a lot of anger and fear out there in the far right wing and that is dangerous.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there may be violence, but it will not be systemic and will be the results of individuals. I doubt we will see riots at all, unless serious fraud is discovered...and even then it is unlikely.
I also feel that Obama will have to be more vigilant than some other Presidents if he wins. There are still crackpots out there willing to take a shot at him if he wins.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hardly a fair test. Detroit riots when the Pistons win, and LA riots for the Lakers. Admittedly the Presidency isn't as important as an NBA Championship. But this time over 3million people have placed their bets on Obama to win, so the result might produce nearly as much furor as a US soccer*championship.
* What the rest of the world calls "football". And what Americans call "You mean there's folks who think just kicking a ball around is a sport???"
posted
1. My biggest problem is the DIebold voting machines. We have close sourced, paperless voting machines run on an MS Access Database (hopelessly insecure) and sold by a company whose CEO promised a Bush victory in 2004. I can't believe more people aren't up in arms about it. Maybe it's because some people still use other forms of voting or maybe it's because all of the "danlging chads" of 2000 make us think there's no better alternative, but there is. And it's simple. Open source, quality assured (through independent testers) software that leaves a paper trail in the event a recount it demanded. And for heaven's sakes -- MS Access?
At the least this is fishy. At the most, it's the biggest potential for widespread voter fraud in history. If McCain wins, I will suspect the latter. I highly doubt he will, however; because frankly with the polls showing such a divide, it would be way to fishy. If I were to think of this from a conspiracy theorist's POV, I would guess that the powers that be would only tip the election were it close enough to go unnoticed. Which means, of course, that it would always remain a conspiracy theory.
But I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I just firmly believe that a democracy thrives on openness, especially in the voting system. There should be NO ROOM FOR DOUBT.
2. 3.
I'll answer these together. I'm an advocate for multi-party systems and have, in the past, voted third party in order to express my discontent with the current closed system.
This election cycle gave me more hope. For the first time in a long time, I do not see this as a choice between "the greater of two evils." Maybe I've become an optimist, but there it is.
Looking forward, I still want more decent options. I'm not sure if more parties would help but that's one route. It wouldn't take legislation (as our system should theoretically work perfectly well under multiple parties), so much as a media push, IMO. We've had viable independents before and could again.
Looking backward, I see the primary system as being a huge problem. I think we might have done better with smoky back rooms. The primaries encourage rifts within the party and they promote extremists rather than moderates who would appeal to both parties.
4. If McCain wins despite the overwhelming contradictions in numbers, I would need a VERY good explanation. As I said in 1, I would be inclined to suspect voter fraud. I don't think that makes me a radical. It's just that polling has proved to be a pretty doggone accurate predictor, historically speaking, even when we don't see such wide margins!
If Obama wins, I think the Secret Service may have their work cut out for them. There is a lot of hatred going on for a lot of reasons. We're not over our racial strife.
So I guess this election does have more potential than usual to cause rifts. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like the voting machines either, but I am unaware of anything I can do that will actually change them. And our voting machines are extremely un-user friendly- we have a wheel.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hardly a fair test. Detroit riots when the Pistons win, and LA riots for the Lakers.
Hey come on now, we don't riot nearly as often as they do in East Lansing, and that's all white frat boys.
Rabbit -
Inner cities are a different world than the rest of the country. You're always going to get a hypersized look at racial tensions in places like LA and Detroit, and probably the area around DC. Places with old and like 90% black populations that haven't gotten any better in the last forty years, yeah, I think it's obviously more likely that something might happen there. I guess I didn't connect it in my head when you singled those places out. As a nation, even since 1992 I think we've gotten better. Have LA and Detroit? Maybe, maybe not. I'd be surprised if they rioted in Detroit though. But even if the entire country became color blind, places like Detroit, DC and LA would still be holding out. They'll be the last places to go, because racial tension has hit them the hardest.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone want to bet that should Obama lose decisively, his election night speech will call for acceptance, tolerance, and calm, and support of McCain as president?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but to be fair, I think when McCain loses on Tuesday, his speech will be much the same. He wants to win, but in the face of losing, the guy isn't going to intentionally screw the country by throwing a wrench into our democratic machinery. I don't think he always puts country first, but I also don't think he's THAT spiteful. (Hillary maybe, McCain no).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
"Television networks needed a hit, and Barack Obama gave them one. ....one NBC executive suggested...that Obama might be invited back to fill the 8 p.m. Wednesday time slot..."
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Anyone want to bet that should Obama lose decisively, his election night speech will call for acceptance, tolerance, and calm, and support of McCain as president?
Its an odd bet to make since the chances of it ever being able to be resolved are very slim.
If the polls were close or McCain was in the lead, then I would bet that if Obama suffered a decisive loss he would call for calm and tolerance and support of McCain.
From where we stand, it is believable the McCain might squeek out an electoral college win while loosing the popular vote, I can even imagine McCain winning the popular vote by a hair if the Obama get out the vote machine fails.
But right now given all the data, I would consider a decisive win for McCain alone evidence of serious election fraud and I would hope Obama and his supporters would take to the streets in non-violent protest and refuse to back down until there had been a thorough independent investigation.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I also don't think American confidence in the system will be damaged. If Florida in 2000 couldn't cause us to rise up and demand the system be reworked, I don't think anything save concrete evidence of a massive conspiracy to change the vote would do it.
I wish I knew how to demand anything of our government at all.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's going to take a lot more to set off a race riot.
The 1992 LA riots were set off by a single court decision that blacks felt was racially biased.
Really not accurate. There was a lot more buildup than that -- it was merely the match on an existing powderkeg.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's going to take a lot more to set off a race riot.
The 1992 LA riots were set off by a single court decision that blacks felt was racially biased.
Really not accurate. There was a lot more buildup than that -- it was merely the match on an existing powderkeg.
Yes, I'm not sure how that is different from my point. I didn't say the Riot was caused solely by the Rodney King beatings and subsequent trial, I said it was set off by them in the way the same way that a bomb can be set off by lighting the fuse with a match. The match sets off the explosion even though a match alone can't cause an explosion.
Riots have never been about one single event, but generally one event sets them off. I just don't see that there has been a substantial change in race relations from the perspective of the poorest neighborhoods and I think that a strong perception that the election was tainted and rigged against a black candidate could very likely set off another powderkeg.
Or you arguing that there isn't a comparable powderkeg waiting to exploid any more or just trying to quibble over the details.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Or you arguing that there isn't a comparable powderkeg waiting to explode any more
Not in L.A. there isn't. The riots were largely about the behavior of the LAPD, and while that's still far from perfect, it is a whole lot better than it was in 1992. Some of the other racial tension issues (like the interactions between Asians and African-American neighbors) have also gotten much better.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hadn't considered the possibility for violence if one of them wins the electoral college and the other wins the popular vote. I think if McCain wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote, there's a much higher chance that something could happen.
I'd probably feel like flipping over a car and setting it on fire myself. Getting screwed out of an election based on an anachronistic technicality that's long since past its prime hurt the first time. Having it happen again in less than ten years would be infuriating.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Or you arguing that there isn't a comparable powderkeg waiting to explode any more
Not in L.A. there isn't. The riots were largely about the behavior of the LAPD, and while that's still far from perfect, it is a whole lot better than it was in 1992. Some of the other racial tension issues (like the interactions between Asians and African-American neighbors) have also gotten much better.
I'm glad to hear those issues have in fact improved but I'm not convinced that this makes it any less likely for this election to set something off. There are still a several powder kegs sitting right under this election, the most important are the two below.
1. A history of black disenfranchisement in the political process. Historically, blacks have had low voter participation in many areas because they believed that the political process was stacked against them. There is a lot of bitterness and anger over this just below the surface. Many blacks have registered to vote and already voted early in this election because of hopes that this time will be really different.
2. A lot of anger and distrust has built up in the left wing over the past 8 years. Many people believe that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged. Concerns over voting irregularities in Ohio in 2004 have never been satisfactorily investigated. Concerns over the Diabold touch screen voting machines have been largely ignored. There are continuing concerns that republicans are trying to purge likely liberals off the voting rolls and intimidate voters. If there is any credible evidence of this happening this year and McCain wins, it will be the last straw for a lot of people on the left.
If Obama looses this election after leading by a substantial margin in all the polls, a lot of people will see this as proof the the process corrupt. For certain groups that are already angry about years of disenfranchisement in the political process on top of a looming economic meltdown, this could indeed be the match that sets off an explosion.
And in truth, I don't know how likely this really is. Since I have been very active in the anti-war politics, I know quite a few people on the far left from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds and I can't imaging them allowing what they see as a suspicious McCain victory go by without protest. For some like my Quaker friends, that would mean non-violent action. With others like my anarchist friends, I can definitely see things getting violent. And the funny part of that is, these aren't people who are on the Obama band wagon.
The problem is that I don't really have a good idea either how wide spread the anger and scepticism is or how likely a suspicious McCain victory is.
I really hope and pray that everything goes smoothly on election tomorrow. I hope that the observers from both parties find no evidence of fraud or attempts to keep people away from the polls. I hope the exit polls match up with the actual vote counts and that the margins are decisive. And I hope that all of that is enough to persuade the overwhelming majority of Americans that this election was fair because the last thing America needs right now is another controversial election outcome.
But even more than I hope all those things, I hope that the election really will be fair and not just look fair. I hope that if there is credible evidence that it was not fair -- Americans will finally stand up and demand an investigation and if necesary demand revolutionary change.
I don't want to see violence or riots, but I'd rather see that than watch Americans roll over as our democratic society slips away because we can't image that a rigged election could happen here.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Anyone want to bet that should Obama lose decisively, his election night speech will call for acceptance, tolerance, and calm, and support of McCain as president?
Anyone want to bet that Magic Mile High Marshmellows with grow tonight, be yummy tomorrow, and feel good forever and ever?
Which has a likely chance of happening, that or a Mccain win?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found this report in today's news sobering.
quote:Cross burnings. Schoolchildren chanting "Assassinate Obama." Black figures hung from nooses. Racial epithets scrawled on homes and cars.
Incidents around the country referring to President-elect Barack Obama are dampening the postelection glow of racial progress and harmony, highlighting the stubborn racism that remains in America.
quote:At Standish, Maine, a sign inside the Oak Hill General Store read: "Osama Obama Shotgun Pool." Customers could sign up to bet $1 on a date when Obama would be killed. "Stabbing, shooting, roadside bombs, they all count," the sign said. At the bottom of the marker board was written "Let's hope someone wins."
quote:Second- and third-grade students on a school bus in Rexburg, Idaho, chanted "assassinate Obama," a district official said.
quote:-Crosses were burned in yards of Obama supporters in Hardwick, N.J., and Apolacan Township, Pa.
-A black teenager in New York City said he was attacked with a bat on election night by four white men who shouted 'Obama.'
-In the Pittsburgh suburb of Forest Hills, a black man said he found a note with a racial slur on his car windshield, saying "now that you voted for Obama, just watch out for your house."
However, Rabbit, I'm curious: your initial post seemed to anticipate larger problems. When I read it at the time, I thought it was a rather pessimistic set of questions.
Would you say that the outcome of the election is reassuring, even though there are a series of idiots and bigots causing small problems? I guess what I'm asking is if you're going to have the same set of concerns going into the next election in 4 years, or if you feel like the process worked this time.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did indeed find the outcome of the elections reassuring. As I posted here and on my blog, for the first time in years I actually felt proud of my country and the progress we have made on racial issues in my life time. I'm also relieved to have my fears of wide spread fraud in the US elections proven to be paranoid delusions.
Sad as the events reported above are, it is a relief that there haven't been any truly horrific hate crimes. There have been no lynchings or mad gunmen shooting random minorities. I am cautiously optimistic but still wary that such things could still happen. I'd like nothing more than to proven wrong on this account.
My most pessimistic predictions were in the scenario that Obama lost. I'm relieved that I will never know if those were valid.
I'm really hoping that the Secret Service are the best of the best and doing their job effectively. Obama's already had more threats than any other President elect and I have little doubt that some of those who make threats will try to follow through. I hope we never find out what would happen if the first black US president was assassinated.
I'm still concerned about the potential for fraud in the US elections. I still think we need to require that all computerized voting systems be open source and be certified reliable, secure, and verifiable by an independent commission. Confidence in the electoral system is absolutely essential to democracy. It isn't enough that the system worked this time or that there were fewer irregularities reported. A strong democracy can't be built on trust, it must be built on openness, transparency, checks and balances that assure all sides that elections are fair.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I still think we need to require that all computerized voting systems be open source and be certified reliable, secure, and verifiable by an independent commission. Confidence in the electoral system is absolutely essential to democracy. It isn't enough that the system worked this time or that there were fewer irregularities reported. A strong democracy can't be built on trust, it must be built on openness, transparency, checks and balances that assure all sides that elections are fair.
posted
And at the same time, without trust, the whole thing falls apart. I'd modify that to say that it can't be built on just trust. But I think a democracy would topple easily without it. In fact, many have.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And at the same time, without trust, the whole thing falls apart. I'd modify that to say that it can't be built on just trust. But I think a democracy would topple easily without it. In fact, many have.
Can you give some examples of democracies that toppled because of lack of trust? I'm not coming up with any.
I ask because I'm not sure we mean the same thing by trust. Websters defines trust as an "assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something." While I think having people in government who are worthy of our trust is highly desirable, if our governmental system relies on the character and truthfulness of individuals, then all it takes is one dishonest person to bring down the system.
Our government is set up with a system of checks and balances, and free access to information specifically so that we don't have to rely on the character of individuals to be certain the system works.
Maybe that's just a scientists way of looking at it. In science, mistakes get made, they always will. When humans are involved, there will be mistakes. But the integrity of the scientific process isn't base on trust. Science doesn't rely on the character, strength and truthfulness of individuals (although these are certainly desirable) -- over the long run, it relies on reproducibility and independent verification.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I meant trust differently. If you don't trust in the validity of an election, or the validity of a government, then it's far more prone to being overthrown.
Even if there was RAMPANT fraud in this past election, what do you think the chances are that we'd have risen up and overthrown the government? Pretty low I'd say, because there is a two century history of trust in this country, that the government in place is there honestly, even if we don't want them there, so we let them do their thing and then vote for someone else, because we also trust that when this guy's term is up, he'll leave peacefully. If that trust wasn't there, then we'd be more likely to topple him, but we have trust in the system as well, and so does whoever is in the office, even if they abuse it from time to time.
Take away all that trust, and you have a far, far less stable society.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't trust in the validity of an election, or the validity of a government, then it's far more prone to being overthrown.
Now I think that we mean something entirely different by "overthrown".
In the hypothetical scenario in which the US elections were fixed by Diabold and nobody protested because they blindly trusted the electoral system, then Diabold would have succeeded in overthrowing the democratic government. We would no longer have a government chosen by the people, we would have a government chosen by Diabold.
Perhaps you believe that scenario is highly unlikely, but there is no reason you should have to believe or disbelieve. We should be able to verify that it did not occur.
Trust might lead to a more stable society, but there is no reason to believe it will lead to a more democratic society. Strong dictatorships which curtail individual liberties are often extremely stable.
If we blindly trust that our elections are free and democratic and do not insist on strong evidence to back that trust, we are in grave risk of loosing our democracy.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
And I'd count that as "overthrown" too. It doesn't have to have a sinister connotation. Overthrowing an elected government, be it legitimate or not, is still overthrowing it, even if it's being done to reestablish a legitimate one.
I don't think trust really plays much of a role in dictatorships. That's why I specifically kept it in reference to democracies.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK. Let's try getting rid of the word trust.
For a democracy to work, people need to have confidence in the integrity of the electoral process. If, however that confidence is based on their faith in the character, competency and truthfulness of the people involved, there is an unacceptable risk that the democratic process could be hijacked.
Peoples confidence in the electoral process needs to be based on independent verification of the results through as many means possible rather than an untestable belief in the people or systems being used.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's easy to say in hindsight, but I'm truly not surprised any of these fears didn't come to fruition. We always assume things are worse now than in previous times. But that is a mistaken assumption. Politics are no less divisive than they have been. Political attacks are no less disgusting, in fact they may be less so (The whole idea that Jefferson fathered a child with Sally Hemings came out of an attack by his political opponents during his run against Adams). And there have been many moments in history where the outcome of the election was far more controversial. Lincoln was feared by far more people than Obama.
Of course, does that mean the racial issues don't exist? Of course not. And simply electing a black President isn't going to fix the ill will that still exists among all groups. Though it does a lot to help. That being said, many would argue the treatment of Hilary Clinton, Bill Richardson, or Mitt Romney, means we still have a long way to go in other areas.
I'm not saying I agree with that, I just don't think Obama's election is the end to divisiveness or distrust. I think those things, sadly, are the nature of politics, and will never go away. But perhaps Obama's victory will lessen them, at least for a short while.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found the attacks on Sikhs and other South Asians particularly amusing/ironic/sad since they were apparently mistaken for Muslims/Arabs by their attackers who mistakenly thought Obama was Muslim/Arab.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
